Do Virus Scanners Slow Down Your System?

[Guest]

@pandemonium_ctp

yes, problem with IE is history - but using Opera / Firefox was that, what helped me to live all these years with no problem.

To be honest - I have nothing to say against IE in win7 - it is really good, but i'm still using opera because i like it, and just because if there will be a security problem - IE will be still afected in first place, because it is so wide spread.

 

[pandemonium_ctp]

[citation][nom]fip___[/nom]...IE will be still afected in first place, because it is so wide spread.[/citation]

Touche. It also has the most financial support backing it. We could take that debate beyond the horizon and back.

 

[uruquiora]

Gief stats for Eset NOD 32 and AVG please otherwise great article thanks Tom

 

[Annisman]

Ok, but what happens when you are in a game and your scheduled virus scan starts scanning the game files you are currently using ? Horrible lag.

 

[Guest]

Try installing anti-virus software on this configuration and see what happens:
Intel Celeron M 360 @ 1.40GHz
512 MB RAM

I just want to point out that anti-virus software CANNOT be installed on all computers.

 

[Guest]

Well missing benchmark for decompression of winrar file (this is where whole AV magic happens) and benchmarks with would show same result while system have to handle possible infection (ie. conficker or other virus from web/LAN)

 

[womble]

I would have liked to have seen a seen a less high spec system or two thrown into the mix, something along the lines of a dual or single core with 2GB of memory. These sort of systems are still very common and might have shown that it is worth upgrading.

Interesting as the information is, I wouldn't have expected the test system to struggle much with the extra burden. Still hats off as it has been ages since I have seen a test like this.

 

[quanta08]

Its really a fantastic article. I had some doubts but now all are clear.

 

[the_krasno]

No ESET or NOD benches? I'm disappointed.

 

[gbean02]

Why was AVG 10 not used in the benchmarks? In my experience with hundreds of computers with every AV under the sun, all AV's will miss something that the competitor will catch. Of all the AV's, Norton was by far the biggest resource hog.

 

[Sb1]

Good article, I would of thought that AV's would use a little more resources than the article showed.

For most people reading on here and other tech sites regularly, AV may not be needed. But most people should have them. I use the free Avira AntiVir Personal and have the AntiVir guard disabled 99.9% of the time. I scan for viruses probably every 1-2 months since I'm not too worried about them, even then just in certain folders on my hard drives. I am more concerned about spyware and such and run Malwarebytes every month and sometimes SuperAntiSpyware if I download stuff I shouldn't probably be downloading in the first place.

Of course for a safer browsing experience, I use Sandboxie and a different Firefox install and feel very safe when I go look at "art" on the web
Can also use NoScript, AdBlock Plus, and CookieSafe to name a few to be even more safe. Also Opera in Sandboxie works good. Of course I don't know if it's wise to have my regular Firefox going and then a Sandboxie Firefox one also, maybe a bug could cause some security thing through.

I think Virus Total is a great tool to use also. I seem to use that every 3 weeks or so. Especially easy if you have a hash checker integrated within Windows Explorer.

I did do a Google search 2 months ago and the 2nd site I clicked on gave a pop-up install virus thing, but got out of it. No, Google didn't have a warning on that site, must of been brand new

 

[martel80]

[citation][nom]Ubundu[/nom]it would have been useful to see a difference in the benchmarks using different HDDs like the 5400 RPM laptop ones, 7200 RPM and SSDs, that would have made a difference[/citation]
I think the benchmarks should have been done with a SSD since there I would expect the performance impact to be the worst.
If I would buy a blazing-fast SSD but end up with the same speed as with some lower-cost one due to AV SW, what would be the point of the price premium?

 

[mattspchelp]

Anychance of Adding Avast to the benchmark ?

 

[bustapr]

I wouldve liked to see MSE up there.

 

[Ciuy]

why no Bitdefender?? Thats the stuff !!! fail

 

[K2N hater]

Biased article. On a typical cheap (and mostly outdated) low-end office box AV means severe slow down, not only due to CPU usage but the added memory overhead, which leads to extra swapping. On the rig used, which is by no means a cheap one, the tests could never point a different result. It's like Microsoft's methodology to say their newest Windows version is faster than all the previous ones.

 

[enzo matrix]

[citation][nom]aznshinobi[/nom]Avast please?[/citation]
+1. Avast free edition is what I used for everything

 

[Guest]

Interesting choice of using the picture for MSE even though it wasn't included in your tests (at least I didn't see it). I also didn't see anything about booting the machine ... I've had both AVG and MSE installed at different times on my 1.7gHz, 1G ram HP (laptop, circa 2005). During boot up, having either of these installed brings my machine to its knees. Your benchmarks might say one thing, but my real world experience tells me otherwise. I generally get a good read from the tests that I read here, but this one fell a little short IMO. People with a quad core 3.5 gHz machine of course aren't going to see a major system impact. The people with the older hardware on the other hand...

 

[re-play-]

this is bullshit, test playing games and make a scan in your pc while gaming
when u will have a pain in ur a** a lot of stuttering and lag, other thing to take into account
not everybody have a 4quad core in their pc, and less in a office enveroment
so what are u testing?
Antivirus software slowdown ur system like 10-20% in everything u do.

 

[BeCoolBro]

You should and could have included Avira Antivir and Avast antivirus in those benches.

 

[powerbaselx]

The

 

[powerbaselx]

These test are not a surprise to me and i don't complaint about having an AV active.
What i complaint is the windows boot time which i think it's really affected by AV load and first scan to critical files and memory, which is usually active on standard configurations on most computers.
This is the test i'd like to see. Boot time without AV and with AV active with standard configuration and first scan.

 

[hixbot]

I don't bother with resident virus scanners. A linux live cd with a scanner will do the job manually. My CPU (P4 2.8ghz) is just too slow to have a resident scanner. I make regular images of my boot drive, so if i get a virus I can't clean with the live cd, I just restore a backup image.
I haven't got a virus in over 3 years.

If you have low FPS in a game due to slow CPU, you can't afford any background tasks.

 

[darthvidor]

Excellent article. Should have included more anti-virus software.

 

[marraco]

Avira is one of the best, and is free for home users.

It should be included.